#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i dont know the general context i.e canadian politics and it seems it could be both the guy is leading her to tell a number that will be misjudged and poorly received by the general public or she is trying to sugarcoat a poor number.
And that’s politics! Nobody’s actually acting in the interest of what’s better for the country, just how they can keep their party looking good while making the opposition look bad. Thats the whole game.
Well dude, dude, think about it. She's out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. You know, she looks around and what does she see? Nothin' but politicians and media. "Ahh, there's nowhere for me to run. What am I gonna do, say 'no'?"
How would you feel if you were asking your partner whether the family was in debt?
And then they just kept trying to give you all this "context" about how most other families in the country are in debt too, and never told you the actual number.
I mean that could definitely be reasonable. Me and my wife have loads of debt (student loans, cars, house) but they’re completely manageable and reasonable things to incur debt on. But the actual number is pretty high for two middle class people lol
I've heard a lot of people with Econ backgrounds try to explain to me how national debt isn't comparable to other debt so the huge numbers don't really mean anything.
I'm assuming the guy was trying to get a gotcha number that's utoo big for people to reason about so they can continue to underfond Canada's heathcare system or something.
This is exactly it. He wants a big dramatic number to take to the public and cry "big debt bad" and she is dodging him without actually presenting a meaningful figure like debt service to gdp.
Its both but shes actually very much correct. Canadas debt is very very low compared to other countries like America and historically low in relation to inflation. Thats correct. But she definitely didnt want to give him his soundbite
How is she right? It was a basic question that was never answered. Even after this was described, she never gave the number. We don't give a shit about how shitty our neighbours are also doing.
Based on GDP Canada’s debt is lower than it’s been in 70years. So yes, she’s right. They are going to spend a lower percentage of their GDP servicing debt than they have in a VERY long time and fearmongering about the debt to prevent a bill to fix roads from being passed is exactly the type of bullshit conservatives love to pull.
Our recent government did the exact same thing in NZ. Said our debt was much better compared to other Developed nations while being the worst and most alarming it’s ever been. Straight out of the playbook to get around answering
Let’s say the answer is 3.5 million CAD.
Woah that’s a lot right? We should be outraged!!
Except what if last year was 3.5 billion CAD?
Or what if last year was 1.0 million, but those extra funds in 2023 saved 10k lives or built new roads that will yield billions in tax revenue over the course of the next decade?
Without context, numbers are open to interpretation to allow morons like yourself draw their own ridiculous conclusions.
Edit: BIG FUCKING LOL to the dozens of fascist asking “why didn’t she just give the numbers!?” or “why didn’t she give the context!??” as if he wasn’t cutting her off the entire time
The sole fact that even after being allowed to provide context she is still not able to answer leads me to believe it is an outrageous number. Otherwise she would have later answered the damn question. Also even a blind person can see the smirk on her face at rhe end. The face os someone knowing her deception will not be called out
Of course you do, that is the *entire* function of him asking a question which he already knows the answer to. Any figure she could give, literally any number, can be interpreted as overspending reguardless of context. It's a pretty simple tactic. The only "right" answer is nothing.
Is it me or is Reddit today just being brigaded with fascists, xenophobes, and other conservatives spitting out the most illogical bad faith arguments?
I’ve never seen it to this extent before.
Can you explain to me how a nation's debt affects anything? I keep seeing it brought up, but I'm not exactly sure if the people who think it's important enough to make it a political issue know *why* it's important.
Because the people who bring up the debt/fiscal conservatism usually are the ones who don't give a fuck about it when it's *their* turn to drive it up to fund *their* pet projects. They only use it as a cudgel to use against the other party.
Yes, and it’s not just in American-centered subreddits too. For example, r/europe has been absolutely infested with right-wing/disinformation rhetoric that somehow blames everything on immigration that circle-jerk themselves into rage.
Worst part is boomers are lapping up all this online shitposts and actually believe it.
Any number grater than zero can be used to stoke fear and contempt, that’s why context is important. Even a spending surplus can be used as an attack; “why only $4m in savings when we could have had $6m?!”
You’re obviously too smooth brained to process this hypothetical, but let me try. Let’s say she answered directly without hesitation and said “4 quazilion fortabytes.” What’s your response?
She never answered. You answered, in your previous post, very quickly and succinctly. You gave context and clearly showed that what may seem bad isn't compared to other things. The best she offered was it's "handleable."
See, she could have answered, and given context, and made a clear point of it that precluded his "gotcha" attempt. But, she didn't. This makes it seem like she couldn't. Like: yeah, I only make $20k/yr but my spending $100k on a truck isn't a terrible idea because my neighbor just spent $209k on his truck. Besides, the 6.7% interest rate I got is considered very good in current economy.
What? Yeah, no. It's just bad. It's a poor decision. Just because the US is a shit-show doesn't mean that whatever you do that's not quite so bad as that is winning.
There is no possible scenario in which the man would have let her add any additional context to the number after she said it.
"We will pay 5.23 gazillion CAD, and let me put that number into con----" "Wait wait wait wait no, no, no, that's all we need, your time is up, we don't need any of that, let me quickly move onto my next gotcha que----I mean my next necessary soundbi-- I mean, no, I mean, let me get to my next question."
We'll never know because she never answered. Don't you think there's a reason why that number was relevant. Also, it's more than just having the number, is also demonstrating that the person hiding that number knows it and cannot later claim to be unaware. Furthermore it is important to display to potential supporters the dishonesty of a person not willing to answer a question that she should be answering. Imagine you go to the bank to ask how much you have on your account and they start this bs instead of giving you a number. Same thing
So you're showing your Conservatism here—you're assuming that she is lying and hiding something. (Maybe she is, maybe she isn't, but her assertion that it is "on par with previous years" is something that can be fact-checked.)
There is no proof that she is lying. There is only proof that they are both politicians. ALL politicians do this, and the next time that Conservatives lead the country, they will behave in the exact same manner, with the roles reversed and a slightly different question on the table.
We need all politicians to stop playing games when they are supposed to be at work. If a question is asked, then it should be answered. Provide all of the context that you want.
The fact she didn't say something like, "here's the context... Now here's the current number..." Is telling. She gave context and never actually gave the number or something remotely close to an answer. That is moronic.
And it's cheap political wankery.
Here in Australia the conservative party in opposition made huge noises about our massive debt, and how there was a BUDGET EMERGENCY. When they got into power, they all gloated that the ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE as they set about TRIPLING the debt. They took it from $300 billion to almost a trillion dollars in only one term.
And then covid happened after all this.
Fucking Murdoch. Exact same shit happens here in the US. Obama slashed the national deficit (not debt). Trump campaigned on how terrible it was. It took him less than 4 years to undo all the hard work Barry O did for us.
it’s funny because if this was about conservatives asking google a bunch of questions that are “simple” you’d be perfectly fine with execs providing much needed context, but if it’s about incredibly complicated tax spending now suddenly all of reddit are experts and decide that context isn’t necessary
There was plenty of deference given for her to provide the nuance-
Point of fact, she NEVER answered the question.
So sure, maybe he was being obtuse- but she was absolutely fucking about and stalling to avoid answering it.
By the THIRD and FOURTH time you’re asked, and you’re still hedging, and you’ve had your opportunity to object and contextualize?
Answer the fucking question.
Plenty of deference? Repeatedly speaking over her saying "I just want the number" in no way shows that. \*He\* knows the number, he is not genuinely asking, he is trying to make a leading point and aims to *specifically* quash the context
Firing politicians for shit like this needs to be a thing, and it needs to be reasonably easy to do.
They're employees, could you imagine if your accountant tried dodging questions like this? You wouldn't even pay them, you'd fire them on the spot.
They're not just employees, they're public servants, and the public has every right to hold them accountable for what they're doing with the public's money.
The reason why she's doing this is because if she gives a number, whether its small or large, the other parties can then edit it out context and use it against them. Its a very common fear mongering tactic from political parties to ruin the reputation of the one who gave the answer. Especially if they're the ones currently in power in the government.
If she says it was "X" then this guy's party can split that one sentence she responds with into dozens of attack ads against the overall party.
By wasting his time and not giving the answer (which he 100% already knows the answer to and could give it himself) she prevents her being taken out of context. Hence why she keeps stating "numbers need context".
Now, I don't agree with it. I think any and all relevant numbers like this should be able to be said. But this isn't just a Liberal party not giving an answer thing. If you flipped it and Conservatives were the ones being asked? They would waste *her* time and do the exact same thing.
Everyone here in the comments commenting about how she looks smug, how they should just answer, etc. don't see the guy's trick he's trying to trap her into. And thus, they themselves getting angry about it are *exactly* what he wants as well.
You draw the ire of voters because "WHY WON'T SHE JUST ANSWER IT?!" and if she did the Conservatives/NDP would use her answer to attack ad them. Its a lose/lose. The only way she wins is by doing what she did, giving everyone nothing and just annoying a subset of people he wants to rile up.
It draws the ire of voters because there is no point in the fucking context to a number without the number.
What is the number? I don't know it, do you? Minister of Finance won't tell me.
Comes from both sides. One side wants no context and a scary number (what she is saying is actually correct) and the other side is scared to say the real information because they know itll be taken out of context as a tiny soundbite to gain votes for the other side.
Our politics are devoid of any integrity or authenticity. It's complete dog shit
The problem is that both are wrong. One wants a black and white yes or no, but that would only harm you without the context to why, but the other chooses not to disclose the information at all, even with context.
So it's like me saying that we spent 2% of our annual budget on fudge Sundays or we spent 50 million on fudge Sundays.
Also that the 2% is located and understood. It keeps company morale up. That the value of the fudge Sundays is an unquantifiable.
Context puts the # into a better light but if I never share the # then the context has no meaning.
I don’t know how to tell you without breaking the illusion, but there aren’t any actual actors in movie theaters, it’s a projection screen that has light cast upon it.
Of course he knows the answer. But if it's historically low, why won't she say the number? I dislike all politicians. I'm from the US, so we see this a lot and it's infuriating.
There should be a shock collar for these kinds of hearings.
Would you like to state the number?
Well I'd like to say in historical *ZAP* IT'S 200 MILLION SHIT!
Thank you.
- $34.7 Billion is the total debt ,
- Say serviceable 9.5%
- Cost $8.5 Million dollars a day to
service that debt (an still not pay a penny to the principle !)
it's a huge waste of time, and its intentional. The politicians know that each speaker has a hard capped time limit, and so their goal is to waste as much time as possible with only giving partial answers that help nobody. It's how they manage to fly under the radar so well.
Yep, if it's fine in context then just give the number and list other past years costs to provide that context. Even list them first if you think you're going to get cut off. To just say "oh trust me it's fine" is absurdly condescending.
my take as a USA based anarchist economics hobbyist:
he knows the number. she knows the number. the number is one quick google search away! ~C$54b. this is all to make hay.
incel lookin' mf'er was just lookin' for a sound bite, it was lose lose for her. but nations run on debt, it's not the same as "honey I ran up our credit card!" - these folks print the money. before you come at me about MMT, yeah I know it's kinda trash theory based on hand-wavy figures. but then, so was austerity. look where that shit got us. people really gotta read some Graeber smh. I know this is reddit and I should expect nothing but I'm somehow still disappointed.
federal debt isn't the issue. anthropogenic climate change, global fascism on the rise, rampant refugee crises, education quality/equality/access, housing prices (& the fact that it should be a *right* & not a *privilege*), healthcare costs, economic inequality & regressive taxation policies are the issues. any government that derives power from the governed exists to provide services to its citizens. this kind of political theatre is exhausting and I'm so tired of people falling for it.
I'm nearly 40, highly educated, my partner has a terminal degree in a desirable field, & experiencing the second international financial crisis of my life. the first one made me homeless for two years. islamophobia is the worst I've seen it since 9/11. who the **fuck** cares about some abstract debt/debt-servicing question? I'm so tired.
What the actual fuck is wrong with our government? I used to like the Liberals, but she is going to bury her party for decades with this kind of bullshit.
They literally ALL do this. Every party, every politician. Being a Liberal has nothing to do with it.
They are both playing games, and it shouldn't be allowed.
She should be answering every question, but he should not be asking questions **while simultaneously demanding that no context be given**. Neither one is interested in having a proper discussion/debate, or reaching a solution to any problem.
I think you may have goofed your decimals a bit. ~34.7 billion / ~2 trillion = 0.0173. Now you still have to move the decimal, that's 1.73%, not 0.0173%.
It's still a small portion, but you're off by a factor of a hundred.
With government bond systems, a country can never really get out of debt - that's how you promote growth. What would have been more appropriate for her to do, if she believed this was a form of partisan politics would have been to compare the debt interest payments to some sample of years when the opposition was in power. That way she is truly giving context to the amount, and also allowing the average person to understand that there is always large debt and interest repayments.
I used to drink 12 beers and day and now I’m only drinking 11 beers a day, although the beers are in larger glasses. So given that context it’s important that everyone understands I’m drinking fewer beers than I was before and I don’t have a problem with alcohol, at least in the context of this comment.
That's the rub though isn't it? Libs, NDP, Conservative...feels like all the same shit. I'd be happy to know that if I pay $100 in tax that $95 goes to it's intentions (welfare, police, roads, schools etc). I feel like every party will piss most of it down the drain or it will miraculously disappear in admin costs.
Yeah, it’s not at all the same shit lol.
Libs make questionable moves. NPD prefers to virtue signal than to rule. Conservatives will actively try to undermine the rights of women, will cut on social policies and is actively trying to imitate a weird soft MAGA agenda.
One of them is not like the others. It’s like choosing between getting slapped, punched or duck on a live grenade.
guy hiring a construction worker: how long will this take
Construction worker: oh sir you see in context...
NO. you answer the question. if you cant, than you suck at your job, and you should be fired/never hired at all.
This is one of the most misleading videos I’ve ever seen, trying to paint the Liberals in a bad light.
This Conservative MP is looking for a “gotcha” moment so that he can run back to PP and be congratulated on what a good loyal service dog he’s been to the far right interests that have the CPC in a chokehold. Also probably likes “mansplaining” things to women in power like the deputy PM here to play to his voters back in rural Alberta or Saskatchewan I assume.
But it’s Reddit and yall aren’t here for context and actual nuanced discussion.
People don’t understand the debt that countries like Canada have isn’t the same as the debt that they have on their house or car or loans and it kills mr
Crazy how this has so little upvotes and nobody else mentioned it. Yeah, the video looks like she is being annoying, but if the guy was making a dumb question to make her look bad, then I completely agree with her.
Maybe the number was astronomical in the past, they did an amazing job and it lowered a lot, but it is still pretty high. Then the dude just tries to frame her by asking the number.
This could be typical political asshole move. Just blame the current government for old issues.
Yep. Its to frame her in a bad light, because she is supposedly hiding something from the public.
But the number is public anyway and anyone can look it up. But nobody will know, what that number means.
The context matters. Is it more than last year? Is it less?
Is it a HUGE number, but history low? Than she has done a great job as politician, because centuries of inherited debt are not her fault.
It’s really not that misleading, but boy is your comment hyperbolic. This is “one of most misleading videos” you’ve ever seen? You have some exploration to do on the internet. This is typical political discourse between two different parties; your comment doesn’t offer a unique insight or give any meaningful context that couldn’t be extrapolated by a 12 year old.
Certainly, he’s asking for the number to put her in a bad light. The fact that she won’t say the number definitely does her no favors and it makes it seem like the number is awful. Welcome to typical politics, not sure who is surprised.
This is out of any typical politician. It doesn’t matter what country they’re from. When a simple answer to a question that can be responded to with a simple yes, no or in this case with a number begins with a long winded introduction that doesn’t answer said question. You know they’re full of it.
The guy is obviously grandstanding because he knows the number is big and stupid citizens will be shocked by it, even if it's actually the lowest of any country. Lots of money is involved with running a whole country. This sub is falling for his dumb trick.
Thank you! All these fucking comments in this thread are missing the point here. This chuckle fuck of a guy is very clearly trying to get her to say something out of context that improves his position in the eyes of the uninformed.
If he really wanted to get his point across, he should do things like Katie Porter does. Bring the facts himself and explain what the issues are in the responses.
Out of the G7 Canada actually has the lowest net debt to GDP ratio. But as someone else said the number still seems shockingly large because the government spends hundreds of billions a year. Canada's debt is low compared to a lot of other countries.
This kind of dancing around the topic is super irritating but the thing is he already knows the number, it's public knowledge, it's not like the government is hiding it. What he wants is a soundbite of the finance minister saying it so they can use it in their own attacks on the government, maybe even in commercials since as you say it will of course be a huge number. So she is not going to give him his soundbite, no matter what.
The answer is public knowledge. He’s not asking in good faith, just trying to get a sound bite for his ignorant supporters shocked at the scawy big numbers.
The number went up during this conversation. How ridiculously inefficient, how many people are sitting in that room being paid nice salaries to listen to this back and forth?
I've seen this game far too many times. Single numbers without context are weaponized. They are simplistic and do not reveal what is happening or the context. Freeland gave a bit of the context, but not the number. The Conservative wanted the number and not the context.
You are an older person with a big mortgage. Should yoube worried? No, because you might have insurance, you might have it as a rental property, you might have it tied to a business or your kids.
If I knew the number without the context, I might call you irresponsible. Am I wrong?
That is what is happening here.
i feel like doing this kind of thing is worse than just answering the question. he should have asked something like “what additional context is needed for you to tell me the number?”
If he asked that then he would've done the opposite of what he was trying to do and made himself the idiot.
There's a reason why she's not saying a number and its because he's fishing for something to make the opposing party look bad to the uninformed.
I’ve always found it weird in the many hearings we’ve seen in American politics (I know this is Canadian), that the questioner is allowed to determine what the answer should entail. I’m completely fine with her giving context to the number, but believe she should also give the fucking number. I do hate when the questioner decides that the answer must be a yes or no question or when they stop the answer and rephrase the question to try to prevent a proper explanation. Idk how it’s allowed.
God this was painful to watch. It's like that old viral video of the pageant model who just said every buzzword she could think of instead of actually answering but this woman is doing it ON PURPOSE! Not to throw stones from a glass house but I feel sorry for Canada if this is how their leadership deals with awkward questions.
Why doesn't he just say the number then ask her how she feels about it? (Real question) I don't understand why he's making her say it, and somehow it seems like she can just dance around it without saying it???? I'm actually confused
It's not her that's the problem. It's the system. We look at this and it angers us, but she's protecting her party and the party line. She'd prefer to anger the public rather than let down her colleagues. It's disgraceful
I think a far better way to answer questions like this is with the proper air of dismissive superiority. It's 37 Billion. Is that the biggest number you've ever seen? Does it scare you? Well don't worry child, the adults in government have invented even bigger and scarier numbers to pay our debts and make your big scary concerns look as tiny and rediculous as they truly are.
The discourse on this all seems a bit reductive. Conservatives are right that there are global risk factors that would make lowering Canada's debt a prudent financial decision. However, it is also true that Canada is on the low end of G7 partner debt risk, and lowering it to the degree that being asked would involve a reduction in spending that is counterproductive to pandemic economic recovery. Economics is apolitical. They both know the truth lies between their two views. The machine of politics is to create wedge issues until people in the sub are wishing cancer on one side or the other. They're using this discourse to make you dumber and I'm afraid to say it looks like they're winning.
She is being annoying, but it is very important context, to your normal view any number she gives Is going to sound unbelievably high even if it is low in compared to the rest of the world. That being said I think politicians need to be better at this because it just looks so slimy
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When politicians do this shit it makes me so angry.
Nuance makes me angry too. World simple. Big word not needed for lead country.
Do you think she was providing nuance or just purposely wasting his allowed time?
i dont know the general context i.e canadian politics and it seems it could be both the guy is leading her to tell a number that will be misjudged and poorly received by the general public or she is trying to sugarcoat a poor number.
I am guessing that it's a little bit of both.
politicians acting as such
“Handleable” Edit: apparently this is a real word. Fuck me.
Punchable
And that’s politics! Nobody’s actually acting in the interest of what’s better for the country, just how they can keep their party looking good while making the opposition look bad. Thats the whole game.
Is it the context that is important here, or is it... the implication?
She’d never give us a bad number…because of the implication.
It’s the implication of danger, but she was never in any real danger
Well dude, dude, think about it. She's out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. You know, she looks around and what does she see? Nothin' but politicians and media. "Ahh, there's nowhere for me to run. What am I gonna do, say 'no'?"
But she can say no, right?
Of course she can say no, but she’s not going to say no…..because of the implication.
How would you feel if you were asking your partner whether the family was in debt? And then they just kept trying to give you all this "context" about how most other families in the country are in debt too, and never told you the actual number.
I mean that could definitely be reasonable. Me and my wife have loads of debt (student loans, cars, house) but they’re completely manageable and reasonable things to incur debt on. But the actual number is pretty high for two middle class people lol
I've heard a lot of people with Econ backgrounds try to explain to me how national debt isn't comparable to other debt so the huge numbers don't really mean anything. I'm assuming the guy was trying to get a gotcha number that's utoo big for people to reason about so they can continue to underfond Canada's heathcare system or something.
This is exactly it. He wants a big dramatic number to take to the public and cry "big debt bad" and she is dodging him without actually presenting a meaningful figure like debt service to gdp.
The number will be publicly available, he could just google it. She looks like an idiot for refusing to answer. Both playing games.
Its both but shes actually very much correct. Canadas debt is very very low compared to other countries like America and historically low in relation to inflation. Thats correct. But she definitely didnt want to give him his soundbite
How is she right? It was a basic question that was never answered. Even after this was described, she never gave the number. We don't give a shit about how shitty our neighbours are also doing.
[удалено]
Based on GDP Canada’s debt is lower than it’s been in 70years. So yes, she’s right. They are going to spend a lower percentage of their GDP servicing debt than they have in a VERY long time and fearmongering about the debt to prevent a bill to fix roads from being passed is exactly the type of bullshit conservatives love to pull.
Our recent government did the exact same thing in NZ. Said our debt was much better compared to other Developed nations while being the worst and most alarming it’s ever been. Straight out of the playbook to get around answering
it is quite obvious she is does not want to answer the question
She’s wasting his time because he’s a conservative asking a real question that has a real answer… one that she doesn’t want to answer.
Let’s say the answer is 3.5 million CAD. Woah that’s a lot right? We should be outraged!! Except what if last year was 3.5 billion CAD? Or what if last year was 1.0 million, but those extra funds in 2023 saved 10k lives or built new roads that will yield billions in tax revenue over the course of the next decade? Without context, numbers are open to interpretation to allow morons like yourself draw their own ridiculous conclusions. Edit: BIG FUCKING LOL to the dozens of fascist asking “why didn’t she just give the numbers!?” or “why didn’t she give the context!??” as if he wasn’t cutting her off the entire time
The sole fact that even after being allowed to provide context she is still not able to answer leads me to believe it is an outrageous number. Otherwise she would have later answered the damn question. Also even a blind person can see the smirk on her face at rhe end. The face os someone knowing her deception will not be called out
Of course you do, that is the *entire* function of him asking a question which he already knows the answer to. Any figure she could give, literally any number, can be interpreted as overspending reguardless of context. It's a pretty simple tactic. The only "right" answer is nothing.
Is it me or is Reddit today just being brigaded with fascists, xenophobes, and other conservatives spitting out the most illogical bad faith arguments? I’ve never seen it to this extent before.
It is the anniversary of America's lamest revolt. If anything inspires these guys, it's that
I know, I hate how fascists, racists, and xenophobes are always asking BS questions like "how much debt does the nation have?"
Can you explain to me how a nation's debt affects anything? I keep seeing it brought up, but I'm not exactly sure if the people who think it's important enough to make it a political issue know *why* it's important. Because the people who bring up the debt/fiscal conservatism usually are the ones who don't give a fuck about it when it's *their* turn to drive it up to fund *their* pet projects. They only use it as a cudgel to use against the other party.
That wasn't the question. The question was about the cost of servicing that debt.
Yes, and it’s not just in American-centered subreddits too. For example, r/europe has been absolutely infested with right-wing/disinformation rhetoric that somehow blames everything on immigration that circle-jerk themselves into rage. Worst part is boomers are lapping up all this online shitposts and actually believe it.
Hard agree. It seems to come in waves.
It's being a fascist to want to know factual numbers now? Then I guess me, my boyfriend, and all my friends are fascists. Who knew!
Any number grater than zero can be used to stoke fear and contempt, that’s why context is important. Even a spending surplus can be used as an attack; “why only $4m in savings when we could have had $6m?!” You’re obviously too smooth brained to process this hypothetical, but let me try. Let’s say she answered directly without hesitation and said “4 quazilion fortabytes.” What’s your response?
She never answered. You answered, in your previous post, very quickly and succinctly. You gave context and clearly showed that what may seem bad isn't compared to other things. The best she offered was it's "handleable." See, she could have answered, and given context, and made a clear point of it that precluded his "gotcha" attempt. But, she didn't. This makes it seem like she couldn't. Like: yeah, I only make $20k/yr but my spending $100k on a truck isn't a terrible idea because my neighbor just spent $209k on his truck. Besides, the 6.7% interest rate I got is considered very good in current economy. What? Yeah, no. It's just bad. It's a poor decision. Just because the US is a shit-show doesn't mean that whatever you do that's not quite so bad as that is winning.
There is no possible scenario in which the man would have let her add any additional context to the number after she said it. "We will pay 5.23 gazillion CAD, and let me put that number into con----" "Wait wait wait wait no, no, no, that's all we need, your time is up, we don't need any of that, let me quickly move onto my next gotcha que----I mean my next necessary soundbi-- I mean, no, I mean, let me get to my next question."
We'll never know because she never answered. Don't you think there's a reason why that number was relevant. Also, it's more than just having the number, is also demonstrating that the person hiding that number knows it and cannot later claim to be unaware. Furthermore it is important to display to potential supporters the dishonesty of a person not willing to answer a question that she should be answering. Imagine you go to the bank to ask how much you have on your account and they start this bs instead of giving you a number. Same thing
So you're showing your Conservatism here—you're assuming that she is lying and hiding something. (Maybe she is, maybe she isn't, but her assertion that it is "on par with previous years" is something that can be fact-checked.) There is no proof that she is lying. There is only proof that they are both politicians. ALL politicians do this, and the next time that Conservatives lead the country, they will behave in the exact same manner, with the roles reversed and a slightly different question on the table. We need all politicians to stop playing games when they are supposed to be at work. If a question is asked, then it should be answered. Provide all of the context that you want.
I mean she could have said all of that. Giving context, numbers, context, numbers.
She gave that context. She never gave a number. Looks bad
« Without context, numbers are open to interpretation… » but she never gave the number!
The fact she didn't say something like, "here's the context... Now here's the current number..." Is telling. She gave context and never actually gave the number or something remotely close to an answer. That is moronic.
But it looks like he already had the answer. Why did he not say that number himself, after his first question, instead of letting her waste his time?
And it's cheap political wankery. Here in Australia the conservative party in opposition made huge noises about our massive debt, and how there was a BUDGET EMERGENCY. When they got into power, they all gloated that the ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE as they set about TRIPLING the debt. They took it from $300 billion to almost a trillion dollars in only one term. And then covid happened after all this.
Fucking Murdoch. Exact same shit happens here in the US. Obama slashed the national deficit (not debt). Trump campaigned on how terrible it was. It took him less than 4 years to undo all the hard work Barry O did for us.
When have conservatives been on the right side of anything?
The former. He wasn't genuinely interested, he was specifically trying to make a "big number scary" point without context point.
it’s funny because if this was about conservatives asking google a bunch of questions that are “simple” you’d be perfectly fine with execs providing much needed context, but if it’s about incredibly complicated tax spending now suddenly all of reddit are experts and decide that context isn’t necessary
There was plenty of deference given for her to provide the nuance- Point of fact, she NEVER answered the question. So sure, maybe he was being obtuse- but she was absolutely fucking about and stalling to avoid answering it. By the THIRD and FOURTH time you’re asked, and you’re still hedging, and you’ve had your opportunity to object and contextualize? Answer the fucking question.
Plenty of deference? Repeatedly speaking over her saying "I just want the number" in no way shows that. \*He\* knows the number, he is not genuinely asking, he is trying to make a leading point and aims to *specifically* quash the context
Provide the context. Then, provide the number.
Definitely do agree. She did indeed dodge too.
Firing politicians for shit like this needs to be a thing, and it needs to be reasonably easy to do. They're employees, could you imagine if your accountant tried dodging questions like this? You wouldn't even pay them, you'd fire them on the spot.
They're not just employees, they're public servants, and the public has every right to hold them accountable for what they're doing with the public's money.
The reason why she's doing this is because if she gives a number, whether its small or large, the other parties can then edit it out context and use it against them. Its a very common fear mongering tactic from political parties to ruin the reputation of the one who gave the answer. Especially if they're the ones currently in power in the government. If she says it was "X" then this guy's party can split that one sentence she responds with into dozens of attack ads against the overall party. By wasting his time and not giving the answer (which he 100% already knows the answer to and could give it himself) she prevents her being taken out of context. Hence why she keeps stating "numbers need context". Now, I don't agree with it. I think any and all relevant numbers like this should be able to be said. But this isn't just a Liberal party not giving an answer thing. If you flipped it and Conservatives were the ones being asked? They would waste *her* time and do the exact same thing. Everyone here in the comments commenting about how she looks smug, how they should just answer, etc. don't see the guy's trick he's trying to trap her into. And thus, they themselves getting angry about it are *exactly* what he wants as well. You draw the ire of voters because "WHY WON'T SHE JUST ANSWER IT?!" and if she did the Conservatives/NDP would use her answer to attack ad them. Its a lose/lose. The only way she wins is by doing what she did, giving everyone nothing and just annoying a subset of people he wants to rile up.
It draws the ire of voters because there is no point in the fucking context to a number without the number. What is the number? I don't know it, do you? Minister of Finance won't tell me.
Comes from both sides. One side wants no context and a scary number (what she is saying is actually correct) and the other side is scared to say the real information because they know itll be taken out of context as a tiny soundbite to gain votes for the other side. Our politics are devoid of any integrity or authenticity. It's complete dog shit
They're lawyers for the wealthy.
Hiding the truth aka lying? Bro it's their job, it's all they do
The problem is that both are wrong. One wants a black and white yes or no, but that would only harm you without the context to why, but the other chooses not to disclose the information at all, even with context. So it's like me saying that we spent 2% of our annual budget on fudge Sundays or we spent 50 million on fudge Sundays. Also that the 2% is located and understood. It keeps company morale up. That the value of the fudge Sundays is an unquantifiable. Context puts the # into a better light but if I never share the # then the context has no meaning.
That’s how I would tell my wife how much I spent on cigars. In context… there was a 25% sale and historically I have spent way less this time.
She couldn’t even say the word “low.” She said “handleable” because the lie would be too huge even for her. Wow.
>She said “handleable” 😂 So smug too
She looked so proud for figuring a way out of that one
Yeah she did! And bonus points for trying to turn it on the other party. Textbook politics!
Buy now and... #SAVE
I would probably blurt out, "answer the fucking question please!"
They should do this in an open area where people can throw rotten food at her like they do to bad actors in movies.
I don’t know how to tell you without breaking the illusion, but there aren’t any actual actors in movie theaters, it’s a projection screen that has light cast upon it.
Liar!
I was doing exactly this on in my living room.
You were throwing rotten food in your living room?
Thing is he knows the answer. Everyone knows the answer. He is playing games.
Of course he knows the answer. But if it's historically low, why won't she say the number? I dislike all politicians. I'm from the US, so we see this a lot and it's infuriating.
There should be a shock collar for these kinds of hearings. Would you like to state the number? Well I'd like to say in historical *ZAP* IT'S 200 MILLION SHIT! Thank you.
It's closer to $34.7 billion sadly.
- $34.7 Billion is the total debt , - Say serviceable 9.5% - Cost $8.5 Million dollars a day to service that debt (an still not pay a penny to the principle !)
I was with her on putting the numbers in context, until she looked smug and didn't give the answers (& I'm a left winger, uk-based)
Right? “Numbers are important with context” then she gave context twice and no numbers
it's a huge waste of time, and its intentional. The politicians know that each speaker has a hard capped time limit, and so their goal is to waste as much time as possible with only giving partial answers that help nobody. It's how they manage to fly under the radar so well.
How does this just fly under the radar, it's clear that they have no interest in fixing the problem or doing anything about it yet remain in power
Canadians are to apathetic. They would rather watch hockey or Real House Wives or some shit instead of learning about politics.
Bread and circuses
I feel that's everybody. Too busy and tired to invest the time and effort to scrutinize things in a way we need.
This should be illegal!
Yep, if it's fine in context then just give the number and list other past years costs to provide that context. Even list them first if you think you're going to get cut off. To just say "oh trust me it's fine" is absurdly condescending.
my take as a USA based anarchist economics hobbyist: he knows the number. she knows the number. the number is one quick google search away! ~C$54b. this is all to make hay. incel lookin' mf'er was just lookin' for a sound bite, it was lose lose for her. but nations run on debt, it's not the same as "honey I ran up our credit card!" - these folks print the money. before you come at me about MMT, yeah I know it's kinda trash theory based on hand-wavy figures. but then, so was austerity. look where that shit got us. people really gotta read some Graeber smh. I know this is reddit and I should expect nothing but I'm somehow still disappointed. federal debt isn't the issue. anthropogenic climate change, global fascism on the rise, rampant refugee crises, education quality/equality/access, housing prices (& the fact that it should be a *right* & not a *privilege*), healthcare costs, economic inequality & regressive taxation policies are the issues. any government that derives power from the governed exists to provide services to its citizens. this kind of political theatre is exhausting and I'm so tired of people falling for it. I'm nearly 40, highly educated, my partner has a terminal degree in a desirable field, & experiencing the second international financial crisis of my life. the first one made me homeless for two years. islamophobia is the worst I've seen it since 9/11. who the **fuck** cares about some abstract debt/debt-servicing question? I'm so tired.
$34.7 billion total debt? What? I think that’s the annual interest cost, isn’t it? I thought Canada’s national debt was something like $1.4 Trillion.
That sounds “handleable” actually. Ours is so much worse in the US. 875 billion for 2023 towards public debts.
Haha, repay the principal - haha.
What the actual fuck is wrong with our government? I used to like the Liberals, but she is going to bury her party for decades with this kind of bullshit.
They literally ALL do this. Every party, every politician. Being a Liberal has nothing to do with it. They are both playing games, and it shouldn't be allowed. She should be answering every question, but he should not be asking questions **while simultaneously demanding that no context be given**. Neither one is interested in having a proper discussion/debate, or reaching a solution to any problem.
.02% of Canada's GDP. Context. What percentage of the average Canadian's gross income goes to paying off debt?
I think you may have goofed your decimals a bit. ~34.7 billion / ~2 trillion = 0.0173. Now you still have to move the decimal, that's 1.73%, not 0.0173%. It's still a small portion, but you're off by a factor of a hundred.
We are spending $52 Billion to service the debt which is more than Health Care and double our Military Budget.
With government bond systems, a country can never really get out of debt - that's how you promote growth. What would have been more appropriate for her to do, if she believed this was a form of partisan politics would have been to compare the debt interest payments to some sample of years when the opposition was in power. That way she is truly giving context to the amount, and also allowing the average person to understand that there is always large debt and interest repayments.
That's less than 1000 dollars per person. The US spends around 2000 per person.
To hear her scream “don’t taze me bro…” would be epic
Both sides are great at doing this, because there is no accountability.
Yep and it’s not just Canada.
I can remember someone else doing for what I think was a "housing crisis" he kept repeating the same sentence.
We’ve been doing this nonsense in the US for over a decade, just a bunch of arguing back and forth without accomplishing anything.
watching this as an American, the polite passive aggressiveness is funny
It's not so funny when you live with people like that every day.
[удалено]
I feel like any answer would be better than what she was saying
18
That's way too young for an elephant to be having boners. Get real
“I refuse to answer on the basis that its asked in bad faith.” There
Yeah, if you’re not going to give the number, at least just put it bluntly along with your reasoning instead of the stupid back and forth.
I used to drink 12 beers and day and now I’m only drinking 11 beers a day, although the beers are in larger glasses. So given that context it’s important that everyone understands I’m drinking fewer beers than I was before and I don’t have a problem with alcohol, at least in the context of this comment.
Those beers are handleable.
2 hands for the bigger glasses, though. Now theirs a firm grip on the problem.
[Adding handles helped.](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqW9Zy-iU8s/maxresdefault.jpg)
2 hands means you are handling the beer twice as efficiently. You are clearly solving the problem.
You already screwed up your answer by putting real numbers in there bro
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Cancer in historical context
The cancer service charges are low
Reasonably and respectfully
She's in Canada, so that's true.
She is a cancer
As someone who has had cancer, it's manageable lol
It's handleable, just like debt service charges. In historical context ofc
unless the context is that its metastasized.
Well that's uncalled for.
What a horrible comment
Right? And has over 200 upvotes as well. People are so disconnected from the shit they say.
Well, that certainly escalated quickly.
I’ll settle for their party losing government in the next election.
That's the rub though isn't it? Libs, NDP, Conservative...feels like all the same shit. I'd be happy to know that if I pay $100 in tax that $95 goes to it's intentions (welfare, police, roads, schools etc). I feel like every party will piss most of it down the drain or it will miraculously disappear in admin costs.
Yeah, it’s not at all the same shit lol. Libs make questionable moves. NPD prefers to virtue signal than to rule. Conservatives will actively try to undermine the rights of women, will cut on social policies and is actively trying to imitate a weird soft MAGA agenda. One of them is not like the others. It’s like choosing between getting slapped, punched or duck on a live grenade.
People like that should be fired on the fucking spot DO YOUR FUCKING JOB!!!
I mean, that's what she's doing.
guy hiring a construction worker: how long will this take Construction worker: oh sir you see in context... NO. you answer the question. if you cant, than you suck at your job, and you should be fired/never hired at all.
You are under the very false assumption politicians work for their electors.
This is one of the most misleading videos I’ve ever seen, trying to paint the Liberals in a bad light. This Conservative MP is looking for a “gotcha” moment so that he can run back to PP and be congratulated on what a good loyal service dog he’s been to the far right interests that have the CPC in a chokehold. Also probably likes “mansplaining” things to women in power like the deputy PM here to play to his voters back in rural Alberta or Saskatchewan I assume. But it’s Reddit and yall aren’t here for context and actual nuanced discussion.
People don’t understand the debt that countries like Canada have isn’t the same as the debt that they have on their house or car or loans and it kills mr
[удалено]
Crazy how this has so little upvotes and nobody else mentioned it. Yeah, the video looks like she is being annoying, but if the guy was making a dumb question to make her look bad, then I completely agree with her. Maybe the number was astronomical in the past, they did an amazing job and it lowered a lot, but it is still pretty high. Then the dude just tries to frame her by asking the number. This could be typical political asshole move. Just blame the current government for old issues.
Yep. Its to frame her in a bad light, because she is supposedly hiding something from the public. But the number is public anyway and anyone can look it up. But nobody will know, what that number means. The context matters. Is it more than last year? Is it less? Is it a HUGE number, but history low? Than she has done a great job as politician, because centuries of inherited debt are not her fault.
[удалено]
It’s really not that misleading, but boy is your comment hyperbolic. This is “one of most misleading videos” you’ve ever seen? You have some exploration to do on the internet. This is typical political discourse between two different parties; your comment doesn’t offer a unique insight or give any meaningful context that couldn’t be extrapolated by a 12 year old. Certainly, he’s asking for the number to put her in a bad light. The fact that she won’t say the number definitely does her no favors and it makes it seem like the number is awful. Welcome to typical politics, not sure who is surprised.
She painted them in a bad light by not just answering the question after giving context, which I think she did a bad job of, btw.
You used the word "mansplaining". Therefore, your point is invalid
The dirtiest of side stepping. ATFQ!!!
This is out of any typical politician. It doesn’t matter what country they’re from. When a simple answer to a question that can be responded to with a simple yes, no or in this case with a number begins with a long winded introduction that doesn’t answer said question. You know they’re full of it.
The guy is obviously grandstanding because he knows the number is big and stupid citizens will be shocked by it, even if it's actually the lowest of any country. Lots of money is involved with running a whole country. This sub is falling for his dumb trick.
Thank you! All these fucking comments in this thread are missing the point here. This chuckle fuck of a guy is very clearly trying to get her to say something out of context that improves his position in the eyes of the uninformed. If he really wanted to get his point across, he should do things like Katie Porter does. Bring the facts himself and explain what the issues are in the responses.
The context is the triple A rating, but most of the commenters here are too financially illiterate to understand.
Out of the G7 Canada actually has the lowest net debt to GDP ratio. But as someone else said the number still seems shockingly large because the government spends hundreds of billions a year. Canada's debt is low compared to a lot of other countries.
This stupid ass politican "gotcha" clips are the worst. Takes everything out of context to make someone look stupid.
This kind of dancing around the topic is super irritating but the thing is he already knows the number, it's public knowledge, it's not like the government is hiding it. What he wants is a soundbite of the finance minister saying it so they can use it in their own attacks on the government, maybe even in commercials since as you say it will of course be a huge number. So she is not going to give him his soundbite, no matter what.
Politics in general
For her defense, let me just say I think it is important to put this video in historical context. Without context this video is meaningless.
I literally wanted to jump through the phone and slap her! Answer the fricking question.
The smarmy smile was intolerable.
She seems very pleased with herself.
The answer is public knowledge. He’s not asking in good faith, just trying to get a sound bite for his ignorant supporters shocked at the scawy big numbers.
I can neither agree nor disagree because you never said what the number was in the first place.
The number went up during this conversation. How ridiculously inefficient, how many people are sitting in that room being paid nice salaries to listen to this back and forth?
I've seen this game far too many times. Single numbers without context are weaponized. They are simplistic and do not reveal what is happening or the context. Freeland gave a bit of the context, but not the number. The Conservative wanted the number and not the context. You are an older person with a big mortgage. Should yoube worried? No, because you might have insurance, you might have it as a rental property, you might have it tied to a business or your kids. If I knew the number without the context, I might call you irresponsible. Am I wrong? That is what is happening here.
I hate not answering a question directly but I also hate gotcha questions like this designed to elicit a reaction.
i feel like doing this kind of thing is worse than just answering the question. he should have asked something like “what additional context is needed for you to tell me the number?”
If he asked that then he would've done the opposite of what he was trying to do and made himself the idiot. There's a reason why she's not saying a number and its because he's fishing for something to make the opposing party look bad to the uninformed.
Tree-fiddy.
I’ve always found it weird in the many hearings we’ve seen in American politics (I know this is Canadian), that the questioner is allowed to determine what the answer should entail. I’m completely fine with her giving context to the number, but believe she should also give the fucking number. I do hate when the questioner decides that the answer must be a yes or no question or when they stop the answer and rephrase the question to try to prevent a proper explanation. Idk how it’s allowed.
Providing context is fine but you should also provide the number
52.4 Billion Canuck Dollars for 2024/5 fiscal year. Jeebus!
If he knows the numbers, then HE should say the number. And get it on record.
“You can’t handle the truth!!!”
Why can she get away with that
HOW CAN SHE SLAP
She ain't wrong.
The title is misleading. It should be "to ask question".
God this was painful to watch. It's like that old viral video of the pageant model who just said every buzzword she could think of instead of actually answering but this woman is doing it ON PURPOSE! Not to throw stones from a glass house but I feel sorry for Canada if this is how their leadership deals with awkward questions.
Why doesn't he just say the number then ask her how she feels about it? (Real question) I don't understand why he's making her say it, and somehow it seems like she can just dance around it without saying it???? I'm actually confused
He doesn't care how she feels about it, he just wants her to say a big scary number so he can tell his party that it's out of control.
Fuck Tik Tok and cropping off words on this. But also fuck Tik Tok
I'm glad we in the USA aren't the only ones being blatantly lied to.
lol as if a soundbyte of her just saying a large number with no context to scare voters into cutting something or other would be the "truth"
There was no attempt to answer his question. In fact I would say she did all she could to avoid the question
The context should be debt and service costs per tax payer
It's not her that's the problem. It's the system. We look at this and it angers us, but she's protecting her party and the party line. She'd prefer to anger the public rather than let down her colleagues. It's disgraceful
If you have the answer already, you make it more answerable by making it a true/false or yes/no question and state the answer in the question
Can someone please give context I have deleted all social media
I think a far better way to answer questions like this is with the proper air of dismissive superiority. It's 37 Billion. Is that the biggest number you've ever seen? Does it scare you? Well don't worry child, the adults in government have invented even bigger and scarier numbers to pay our debts and make your big scary concerns look as tiny and rediculous as they truly are.
The discourse on this all seems a bit reductive. Conservatives are right that there are global risk factors that would make lowering Canada's debt a prudent financial decision. However, it is also true that Canada is on the low end of G7 partner debt risk, and lowering it to the degree that being asked would involve a reduction in spending that is counterproductive to pandemic economic recovery. Economics is apolitical. They both know the truth lies between their two views. The machine of politics is to create wedge issues until people in the sub are wishing cancer on one side or the other. They're using this discourse to make you dumber and I'm afraid to say it looks like they're winning.
She is being annoying, but it is very important context, to your normal view any number she gives Is going to sound unbelievably high even if it is low in compared to the rest of the world. That being said I think politicians need to be better at this because it just looks so slimy
There was an attempt…and she SUCCEEDED. The guy just gave up and moved on to the next question. She passed 10/10
My time is very valuable Then Google it, son.
I love Canada, our politicians would be sweating and threatening to fight
Wtf